I've been warning people about this for years. It's almost certainly going to get worse, and our only real protection is going to be the courts.

Even the politicians usually on our side are not going to stick their necks out so that "mentally disturbed" (meaning anyone who has ANY contact with a mental health professional for ANY reason) can still have guns.

IIRC, Pelosi stated, a year or two ago, something like: "All veterans have PTSD." For the past 51 years, my wife has handled the household finances. However, I was in the USAR, and never saw combat. Probably why I was invisible to the VA.

Here is my $0.02:

The political quack Murthy will use these abominations as a springboard to brainwash the populace to believe that:

$0.01. Any civilian (non-military, non-LE) who possesses (actual or constructive) a firearm is certifiably insane.

$0.02. Any civilian who even desires to possess a firearm is mentally disturbed.

A retired police officer who served in the U.S. Navy is suing Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other New York state officials for confiscating his guns after he was mistakenly diagnosed as mentally unstable.

Complaining of insomnia after moving to a new house, Donald Montgomery checked into a Long Island hospital, where he was described by medical personnel as “calm, cooperative, no mania, insight good, speech fluent.” He was discharged with a diagnosis of “depression, insomnia.” He later returned to the hospital for further treatment but was mistakenly listed as an “involuntary admission.”

Under the state’s new SAFE Act gun-control law, an involuntary admission for mental health issues revoked his right to own a handgun, and his four weapons were confiscated by the state.

“Donald Montgomery is a Navy veteran and accomplished NYPD detective. No stranger to dealing with stress and firearms. Despite the fact that Montgomery’s jobs not only allowed, but required, him to handle firearms in high stress situations, the state of New York decided he was unfit to own firearms after he sought treatment for extreme insomnia,” said Dan Cannon at the Guns Save Lives blog.

The SAFE Act was “passed literally under the cover of darkness in New York following the Sandy Hook shooting,” the blog post said.

“One of those new laws changed the state’s mental health laws and encouraged healthcare workers to report people they deemed to be possibly dangerous to themselves or others to the state. It does not have to be a mental health professional who makes these claims.”

The report said Montgomery “was never involuntarily treated, which is usually a requirement for limiting a person’s firearms rights.”

In fact, several notes in Montgomery’s medical files specifically say he was not experiencing suicidal or violent thoughts. Montgomery was ultimately diagnosed with insomnia and mild depression – possibly caused by the insomnia – but otherwise no mental health issues were ever mentioned.

According to the lawsuit, various notes in his file state: “Patient has no thoughts of hurting self. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts. … This is a well-developed, well-kempt male, dressed casually and in no acute distress.

He is calm, pleasant, cooperative. Eye contact is good, speech is fluent. Mood is mildly depressed. Affect is appropriate, somewhat anxious but otherwise mood-congruent. He denies suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation. There is no evidence of any psychotic process, mania, or OCD symptoms. Insight, judgment, impulse control are good.”

The complaint argues Montgomery “did not meet the criteria for an emergency mental health admission.”

However, when he admitted himself for treatment for a night, the hospital described it as an “involuntary admission,” and it refused to change that designation later even in the face of evidence, the complaint said.
The case alleges a number of constitutional violations by officials who transmitted to an unknown number of recipients incorrect information about Montgomery’s case.

“The state has amassed the confidential personal health information of tens of thousands of people into a database shared by various state agencies,” it claims.

When the law was adopted, there were no public hearings on it, no research and no testimony allowed. But state officials immediately complained that the state plan violated the federal medical privacy requirements.
“The state intends its operations to be conducted in a secretive and over-reaching manner,” the complaint alleges.

“As it is commonly understood among laymen, it is already chilling those who may be in need of medical and/or mental health services, whether out of fear for their privacy or concern about the Second Amendment freedoms, or both,” the complaint said.

“To report every person who seeks medical or mental health support services through a government mandate or sponsored program is to fuel the fire of the stigma of a class of persons who are more likely to be victimized than to commit violent crimes with firearms,” it said.

The case claims violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments.

A retired police officer who served in the U.S. Navy is suing Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other New York state officials for confiscating his guns after he was mistakenly diagnosed as mentally unstable.

Complaining of insomnia after moving to a new house, Donald Montgomery checked into a Long Island hospital, where he was described by medical personnel as “calm, cooperative, no mania, insight good, speech fluent.” He was discharged with a diagnosis of “depression, insomnia.” He later returned to the hospital for further treatment but was mistakenly listed as an “involuntary admission.”

Under the state’s new SAFE Act gun-control law, an involuntary admission for mental health issues revoked his right to own a handgun, and his four weapons were confiscated by the state.

“Donald Montgomery is a Navy veteran and accomplished NYPD detective. No stranger to dealing with stress and firearms. Despite the fact that Montgomery’s jobs not only allowed, but required, him to handle firearms in high stress situations, the state of New York decided he was unfit to own firearms after he sought treatment for extreme insomnia,” said Dan Cannon at the Guns Save Lives blog.

The SAFE Act was “passed literally under the cover of darkness in New York following the Sandy Hook shooting,” the blog post said.

“One of those new laws changed the state’s mental health laws and encouraged healthcare workers to report people they deemed to be possibly dangerous to themselves or others to the state. It does not have to be a mental health professional who makes these claims.”

The report said Montgomery “was never involuntarily treated, which is usually a requirement for limiting a person’s firearms rights.”

In fact, several notes in Montgomery’s medical files specifically say he was not experiencing suicidal or violent thoughts. Montgomery was ultimately diagnosed with insomnia and mild depression – possibly caused by the insomnia – but otherwise no mental health issues were ever mentioned.

According to the lawsuit, various notes in his file state: “Patient has no thoughts of hurting self. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts. … This is a well-developed, well-kempt male, dressed casually and in no acute distress.

He is calm, pleasant, cooperative. Eye contact is good, speech is fluent. Mood is mildly depressed. Affect is appropriate, somewhat anxious but otherwise mood-congruent. He denies suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation. There is no evidence of any psychotic process, mania, or OCD symptoms. Insight, judgment, impulse control are good.”

The complaint argues Montgomery “did not meet the criteria for an emergency mental health admission.”

However, when he admitted himself for treatment for a night, the hospital described it as an “involuntary admission,” and it refused to change that designation later even in the face of evidence, the complaint said.
The case alleges a number of constitutional violations by officials who transmitted to an unknown number of recipients incorrect information about Montgomery’s case.

“The state has amassed the confidential personal health information of tens of thousands of people into a database shared by various state agencies,” it claims.

When the law was adopted, there were no public hearings on it, no research and no testimony allowed. But state officials immediately complained that the state plan violated the federal medical privacy requirements.
“The state intends its operations to be conducted in a secretive and over-reaching manner,” the complaint alleges.

“As it is commonly understood among laymen, it is already chilling those who may be in need of medical and/or mental health services, whether out of fear for their privacy or concern about the Second Amendment freedoms, or both,” the complaint said.

“To report every person who seeks medical or mental health support services through a government mandate or sponsored program is to fuel the fire of the stigma of a class of persons who are more likely to be victimized than to commit violent crimes with firearms,” it said.

The case claims violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments.

Here's too hoping he is successful... laying down some precedent for what is still yet to come across America. But, given that we're talking about NY's judicial system, am I the only one who believes the chances of a favorable decision is about as likely as picking the Triple Crown winners?

Our court systems have been stuffed with politics from the bench judges. This was one of Saul Alinsky's tenants... they have been very successful while we've been ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL!

Main thing I can see is the Dr asking a kid if dad has guns and has anger issues.
Dad's always get angry when the have kids,some less than others,but what's the kid guna say?
I wouldn't let the doc see my kid without me of mom in the room,at all
8 years of college they can wrap up most of us with their BS,they can easily twist a kid around

Once you disarm the people, the only people with weapons are your criminals. Hell, during Katrina when guns were being confiscated, people were left without any means of self-protection. And they did it when people needed their guns the most to help insure their own safety and that of their families at a time when rioting, looting, rape, and murder were being committed on a large scale.

During the Ferguson riots, some of the few businesses that were vandalized were due to the store employees/owners being armed.

Making people vulnerable before terrorists (which is exactly what that was), is criminal. God help us. As it's already happening here... I hope people step up try to stop this and VOTE.

Welcome to our community

As the center of our organization, this website provides a place for Northwest gun owners to converse,
organize, learn, educate, trade, and most importantly, work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

Sign up now to participate, it's completely free and takes only a few moments.

About Us

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.